Posted June 25, 2014
IAmSinistar: As for whether having belief versus not makes one more motivated, I could argue that believers are less like to strive and work for change because they believe faith is enough, and that someone higher power will take care of the hard parts for them. This supposition is just as anecdotal as yours though, and I don't have any figures as to whether it is accurate.
It has been accurate at least in the past. At the turn of the first millenium (just before 1000 CE) in many parts of Europe economy and social life ground to a halt because there was an apocalyptic craze going on. People just expected the end of the world within weeks/days and stopped their daily business which lead to famines and other shortages, breakdown of communications and administrations and unrest. People who saw themselves as sinners beyond redemption went on violent rampages, pillaging and raping. Also if you add to "work for change" in their lives you can count in all that religious suicide bombers. The promise of heaven lets them neglect the earthly life and what it has to offer. Their motivation is focused totally on the "beyond".
On a more "civil" scale: Feudalism could survive for centuries because it was taught as the "divine order of things". Rules were meant to rule since that is how some god(s) created the world. (Odin and Baldr included, the Norse legends also tell stories about how people are predestined to be Jarls, warriors or servant by their heritage.) Unrest occured when conditions got that bad that survival instincts kicked in, not because people rationally questioned this order. For centuries the majority of people was content with their place in the world. And also note that from the take-over Christianity in Rome until the Renaissance - when Christian europe slowly caught up to the knowledge of the ancient Greeks (by discovering their works, not by inventing themselves), when religion was cast in turmoil (the three bishops, reformation, Hus) and Humanism was "invented" - science and techological advance were almost absent from the Christian world.
On the other hand there was the (for it's time and compared to the Christian world) very advanced "Islamic medicine". This seems like a contradiction since Islam, at least in some of it's forms, is even more fatalistic (everything that happens to you is already decided by Allah). I have no real explanation for this, just a few hints that were beneficial:
- This science draw heavily from sources of ancient Greek, Indian (Ayurveda, popular even today) and ancient Iranian teachings. Other than the Christians they did not "burn the bridges" (or books).
- Many of the famed scholars were no muslims
- The muslimic world had a unifying "lingua franca" - Arabic, that was far more widely spread and natively spoken than the "Church-Latin". This fuelled communications and scientific intercourse across continents.
Sorry if this post is a little incoherent. Had to switch between typing and working (also typing for the most part ;-)) several times.